Rand Paul Seems Okay With Killing Americans With
Drones Now

If Rand Paul really wanted to rescind the authorization of military force that basically legislated the "war on terror" and gave the President all those sweeping powers, then why hasn't he ever tried to do that? He's a legislator. He should legislate, instead of castigate.

---Every day I fight for you. I tell them how smart you are. Turns out, I was wrong. You people are stupid.-- Dave Chappelle

#32DJStrongPosted 4/24/2013 12:40:59 PM

Evil Genius 9 posted...

If Rand Paul really wanted to rescind the authorization of military force that basically legislated the "war on terror" and gave the President all those sweeping powers, then why hasn't he ever tried to do that? He's a legislator. He should legislate, instead of castigate.

And since they think the use of force in Afghanistan means limitless war anywhere, any time in the whole world, for goodness sakes, wouldn't we try to take back a declaration of war, an authorization of force if the war is over? But here's the sad part. I actually got a vote on it and I think I got less than 20 votes. You can't end a war after it's over up here. And it has repercussions, because these authorizations to use force are used for many other things. So the authorization of force says you can go after al-Qaida or associated terrorists. The problem is, is that when you allow the Executive Branch to sort of determine what is al-Qaida, you've got no idea.

He has tried to legislate it, it was soundly defeated---"On the contrary my friend, we're going to live!"

#33Evil Genius 9Posted 4/24/2013 12:54:25 PM

From: DJStrong | #032

Evil Genius 9 posted...

If Rand Paul really wanted to rescind the authorization of military force that basically legislated the "war on terror" and gave the President all those sweeping powers, then why hasn't he ever tried to do that? He's a legislator. He should legislate, instead of castigate.

And since they think the use of force in Afghanistan means limitless war anywhere, any time in the whole world, for goodness sakes, wouldn't we try to take back a declaration of war, an authorization of force if the war is over? But here's the sad part. I actually got a vote on it and I think I got less than 20 votes. You can't end a war after it's over up here. And it has repercussions, because these authorizations to use force are used for many other things. So the authorization of force says you can go after al-Qaida or associated terrorists. The problem is, is that when you allow the Executive Branch to sort of determine what is al-Qaida, you've got no idea.

He has tried to legislate it, it was soundly defeated

Uh, not exactly. What he actually did was try to attach an amendment to the NDAA to end the Iraq war, after the troops had already left:

This is not the same authorization of force that allows the President to use drones all over the world, aka the "war on terror." So, he's being extremely misleading the point where he's pretty much just lying.

---Every day I fight for you. I tell them how smart you are. Turns out, I was wrong. You people are stupid.-- Dave Chappelle

#34sith_acolyte15Posted 4/24/2013 1:00:56 PM

Evil Genius 9 posted...

From: DJStrong | #032

Evil Genius 9 posted...

If Rand Paul really wanted to rescind the authorization of military force that basically legislated the "war on terror" and gave the President all those sweeping powers, then why hasn't he ever tried to do that? He's a legislator. He should legislate, instead of castigate.

And since they think the use of force in Afghanistan means limitless war anywhere, any time in the whole world, for goodness sakes, wouldn't we try to take back a declaration of war, an authorization of force if the war is over? But here's the sad part. I actually got a vote on it and I think I got less than 20 votes. You can't end a war after it's over up here. And it has repercussions, because these authorizations to use force are used for many other things. So the authorization of force says you can go after al-Qaida or associated terrorists. The problem is, is that when you allow the Executive Branch to sort of determine what is al-Qaida, you've got no idea.

He has tried to legislate it, it was soundly defeated

Uh, not exactly. What he actually did was try to attach an amendment to the NDAA to end the Iraq war, after the troops had already left:

This is not the same authorization of force that allows the President to use drones all over the world, aka the "war on terror." So, he's being extremely misleading the point where he's pretty much just lying.

So he's just like his father---This is the Internet; you can't use popularity to prove something is good unless it's something I actually like.

#35Evil Genius 9Posted 4/24/2013 1:03:44 PM

From: sith_acolyte15 | #034

So he's just like his father

Worse. He's a bloviating asswipe who inherited all of his dad's bad qualities, but none of the good ones that could make you respect him every once in a while.

---Every day I fight for you. I tell them how smart you are. Turns out, I was wrong. You people are stupid.-- Dave Chappelle

#36thepancakeguruPosted 4/24/2013 1:04:49 PM

Where is your god now libertarians?---http://i.imgur.com/s4M4rL6.gifHere there will be retribution.

#37DJStrongPosted 4/24/2013 1:10:22 PM

Evil Genius 9 posted...

From: DJStrong | #032

Evil Genius 9 posted...

If Rand Paul really wanted to rescind the authorization of military force that basically legislated the "war on terror" and gave the President all those sweeping powers, then why hasn't he ever tried to do that? He's a legislator. He should legislate, instead of castigate.

And since they think the use of force in Afghanistan means limitless war anywhere, any time in the whole world, for goodness sakes, wouldn't we try to take back a declaration of war, an authorization of force if the war is over? But here's the sad part. I actually got a vote on it and I think I got less than 20 votes. You can't end a war after it's over up here. And it has repercussions, because these authorizations to use force are used for many other things. So the authorization of force says you can go after al-Qaida or associated terrorists. The problem is, is that when you allow the Executive Branch to sort of determine what is al-Qaida, you've got no idea.

He has tried to legislate it, it was soundly defeated

Uh, not exactly. What he actually did was try to attach an amendment to the NDAA to end the Iraq war, after the troops had already left:

This is not the same authorization of force that allows the President to use drones all over the world, aka the "war on terror." So, he's being extremely misleading the point where he's pretty much just lying.

There is also the Libya vote, he has been quite vocal on the subject the support is simply not there from either party.

The problem with Paul's amendment, as seen by many members of the Democratic majority, was that it quoted then-Senator Barack Obama's words from 2007 in what appeared to be an attempt to embarrass the Democratic president.

Back in 2007, Senator Obama told the Boston Globe "the president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the (U.S.) nation."

Paul said he wanted the Senate to endorse Obama's past words and thus establish that the president had overreached in authorizing the U.S. action in Libya last month without first obtaining Congress' approval.

Paul's proposal was "too cute by half," declared Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday after she joined other senators in voting to table it, 90-10.

Paul had trouble getting even his fellow Republicans to support his idea. Some said they didn't approve of where he had chosen to offer his war powers amendment -- on legislation to do with small businesses. "I think we need to address Libya, when (that's) the focus," said Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican, after the vote.

Wow. I didn't know that I could actually think less of him. That's some seriously childish bulls*** joke legislation.

---Every day I fight for you. I tell them how smart you are. Turns out, I was wrong. You people are stupid.-- Dave Chappelle

#39DJStrongPosted 4/24/2013 1:33:26 PM

Looked at one way as it does indeed embarrass the Pres, but given the unpopular support of such ideas in the Senate, using such tactics raises awareness on the issue itself.

There has to be some politics involved and using people's own words against them is always a winner, I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could to the same to the Senator, start with his positions on Israel for example, the man is not very consistent.

However (getting back on topic) he was in this case (TC).---"On the contrary my friend, we're going to live!"

#40NoName999(Topic Creator)Posted 4/24/2013 1:44:18 PM

Even Rand Paul's fans are angry at his comment

While Paul has acknowledged in the past that an imminent threat could be cause to use a drone to kill an American, the specific situation he noted in the interview – an armed robbery of a liquor store – seemed to some of his fans as too low a threat.

“The guy is simultaneously capable of great good and evil it seems. Scares me. What are our alternatives? I don't know but, I am looking,” one poster wrote on a message board in the Daily Paul, a website for fans of both Rand Paul and his father Ron, the former Texas congressman and presidential candidate.

On his official Facebook page, fans issued similar criticism.

“If someone robs a liquor store, they get due process. Who decides who is guilty? The drone navigator?” one poster asked.

“Which is it Senator Paul?! Where do you stand?! This sickens me! I was just beginning to believe in you, too!” another chimed in.

The new backlash against Rand Paul was first reported by Foreign Policy magazine.